The Fundamental Misunderstanding


In a post I made about a month after September 11th, I said:

There's an angle on the terrorist attacks that I don't think I've heard anywhere: if the terrorists' goal was to get the US to end its support for Israel, what they should have done is kept on doing what they were doing--attack American interests overseas. Eventually, we may have tired of being nickel-and-dimed over something most people see--or at least saw--as irrelevant (I mean, how many people knew who Osama bin Laden or the Taliban were before September 11?), and just rolled over and said 'The hell with it. Israel, you're on your own.' Instead, by taking the fight to our homeland, the terrorists have made exactly the same mistake the Japanese did in 1941. And we all know how that one ended.

Yesterday I got a comment on this two-year-old post from the quaintly-named 'Death Jihadi,' who said:

I know I am replying to an old post, but I think your optimism regarding the War On Terrorism is a little naive. There is a difference between fighting a nation state like Japan (which can always surrender), and an international, nationLESS band of people like Al Qaida.
A distinction without much of a difference. Al-Qaida was only able to plan September 11 because it had Afghanistan as a (then) stable base of operations where they could plan without interference, and Fraudi Arabia as a steady source of funds. Note that they haven't been able to do much beyond the odd nightclub or truck bomb since they got our attention.
I think the whole point of the Iraq war was to demonstrate American power (like the Death Star destroying Alderon in STAR WARS -- I'm sorry to say that America is the Empire in this new story, the Americans are the bad guys.) Maybe Mohammad Atta (the author of September 11 -- and destined to be remembered as an historic figure and military mastermind in the future) thought that he was like Luke Skywalker, destroying the Star Destroyer. I mean, Luke must have killed many people when he blew up that thing. Isn't he a terrorist?
I won't even argue the first point - I think that was indeed one of the many reasons. Note that Libya 'suddenly' gave up all aspirations to acquire WMD. Coincidence? Sure.

Are we the Empire? Gee, I don't know - why don't you ask the American subjects living in the states of West Germany, Honshu, Kyushu, and Hokkaido? Whoops - we forgot to annex them! And the Star Wars saga as a metaphor for the Wahhabists' crusade? Riiiiight. If the jihadis take over, do you think the Committee For The Promotion Of Virtue And The Prevention Of Vice will even let you watch those movies? Not a chance. It's a bad metaphor, anyway - Luke didn't go to Coruscant and off three thousand Imperial civilians.

I don't mean to sound too arcane, but my point is: there is a war on, and in a war, it all comes down to strategy.
There's nothing arcane about it; it's fairly straightforward, although amateurs discuss strategy while professionals discuss logistics.
America has the technology but has lost its nerve (it is not willing to sacrafice huge casualities.) Al Qaida, on the other hand, are both creative and totally willing to give their lives for the cause they believe in (death to the Empire). So, who do you think will win this kind of confrontation?
This is the fundamental misunderstanding the splodeydopes have about America, and it is the fatal flaw that will ultimately spell the end of Wahhabist Islam. America, throughout its history, has never failed to respond fully to any mortal threat. 1776, 1812, 1861, 1941. We did what we needed to do, cost be damned. And that brings us back to my original point: by taking this battle to our homeland, the splodeydopes have drawn our attention to the mortal threat they pose to us. No, we're not going to pop a nuke on Al-Qaida HQ and declare victory, but we will not stop until the threat is gone, one death cultist at a time.
And are Americans willing to give up their future so that Israeli's can realise their Zionist dreams?
Oh, silly me, I forgot - it's all about the Joooooooooos!


> Al Qaida, on the other hand, are both creative
> and totally willing to give their lives for the
> cause they believe in. So, who do you think
> will win this kind of confrontation?

As long as they *keep* dying for their cause, I don't think this merits a serious answer.

Steven Den Beste of the USS Clueless has an interesting take on the rationale behind the radical death-monger crowd's actions:

I think Patton's theory ( applies here: "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Damn, *that's* the quote I was trying to remember!!! LOL at least I was in the right church. :)

Leave a comment


Powered by Movable Type 4.34-en

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Chris published on January 14, 2004 11:22 PM.

In Today's Lesson, We Learn That Leaking Classified Information Is OK If It Damages President Bush was the previous entry in this blog.

How Many Angels Can Dance On The End Of A Split Hair? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.